Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia v. Homeq Servicing Corp.

June 15, 2009

MARIA DE JESUS A. GARCIA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST AND NOTICE AS MOTIONS TO PROCEED PRO SE

(Docs. 8 & 11)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO PROCEED PRO SE

ORDER RELIEVING MITCHELL ROTH AS PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD INFORMATIONAL ORDER FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS

Plaintiff is proceeding with an action for damages and other relief concerning alleged unfair debt collection practices, predatory lending practices, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") violations.

On or about April 13, 2009, the court became aware of the Notice of Cessation of Law Practice of Mitchell Roth, and MW Roth, PLC, filed on or about April 2, 2009, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by the State Bar of California.

On April 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a letter with the court regarding Mitchell Roth, and requested that the court consider the circumstances and allow her to represent herself (Doc. 8).

On June 5, 2009, at approximately 10:15 a.m., plaintiff personally presented herself in the Clerk's Office inquiring about the status of the attorney on her case. She also presented a notice for filing with the court (Doc. 11) regarding the same issues with her attorney, again requesting that the court consider the circumstances and allow her to represent herself, and verbally inquired of Clerk's Office staff when the court would be addressing the status and/or her requests.

Therefore, in light of the State Bar's Notice of Cessation of Law Practice of Mitchell Roth, and MW Roth, PLC, and in light of plaintiff's repeated requests (Docs. 8 & 11) to proceed pro se, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff, MARIA DE JESUS GARCIA, is GRANTED permission to proceed PRO SE; and,

2. MITCHELL ROTH is RELIEVED as her attorney of record. INFORMATIONAL ORDER FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS

Pro se plaintiff shall take careful note of the following requirements:

In litigating this action, the parties must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Federal Rules"), which can be found on the court's website at www.caed.uscourts.gov, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (effective 1/3/05 and amended 6/2/08) ("Local Rules"), a free copy (totaling 272 pages) of which may be obtained in the Clerk's Office, or which can also be found on the court's website at www.caed.uscourts.gov. This order highlights specific rules of which pro se plaintiff should take particular note. Failure to comply with the Local Rules, Federal Rules, and/or a court order, including this order, will be grounds for dismissal, entry of default, or other appropriate sanctions for noncompliance with rules. See Local Rule 11-110 (below);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

RULE 11-110

SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH RULES Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.

1. Documents intended to be filed with the court must be presented to or mailed to the Clerk's Office (at 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 1501, Fresno, CA, 93721). See Local Rule 5-134(a) (below).

RULE 5-134

TIME OF FILING

(a) Filing Complete. E-mailing a document to the Clerk's Office or to the Court (as opposed to Internet electronic filing) shall not constitute "filing" of the document. Except as noted in L.R. 77-121 for the filing of initial documents, a document filed electronically shall not be considered filed for purposes of these Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure until the filing counsel receives a system-generated "Notice of Electronic Filing." See L.R. 5-135. Paper filings, when permitted or required by these procedures, shall be complete upon presentation to the Clerk's Office.

All documents improperly mailed directly to a judge's chambers will be stricken from the record.*fn1 A document requesting a court order must be styled as and titled as a motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.

2. Each document submitted for filing must include the original signature of the filing party or parties. See Local Rule 7-131(b) (below); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a).

RULE 7-131

COUNSEL IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNATURES

(b) Signatures Generally. All pleadings and non-evidentiary documents shall be signed by the individual attorney for the party presenting them, or by the party involved if that party is appearing in propria persona. Affidavits and certifications shall be signed by the person executing the document. The name of the person signing the document shall be typed underneath the signature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. If a document is submitted to the Clerk's Office via portable electronic media, signatures shall appear either as a facsimile of the original (in a scanned document placed on portable electronic media), or on a separate, scanned signature page if the document was published to .pdf and then placed on portable electronic media. In the latter situation, the docket shall reflect the submission of the signature page.

All documents submitted without the required signature(s) will be stricken. Each separate document must be separately stapled. See Local Rule 7-130. If a document is stapled behind another document, it will not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.